Watching Into the Blue, as corny and bad as this movie is, the sequel is much worse. From what I hear, Fool's Gold is much worse also. Invincible is on deck, I remember I almost smashed this movie when I got back from the game where the Eagles beat the Cowboys last year.
This movie was pretty easy to figure out where it all was going as I watched it and the characters were all clearly cut out, so no confusions could be had for their roles in the movie, well maybe except for one character. I make it sound like it's a bad movie, but it's fricking perfect! Natalie Portman definitely deserved her Oscar, Darren Aronofsky should've gotten his, he's the man yo! I can't wait to see what he does for The Wolverine and totally hope he gets to make his Noahs Ark movie. My muscles were strained and my state of mind was uneasy, a psychological horror movie, who would've thought that of a movie taking place in a ballet environment? Fantastic camera work and editing as well, score was silly great, nothing negative to say. Rent it, blindbuy or whatever. See it dudes, see it.
9.5/10
I have this weird rule to never give a perfect score for a first time viewing, I want to make sure my perfect scores stick forever.
This movie was pretty easy to figure out where it all was going as I watched it and the characters were all clearly cut out, so no confusions could be had for their roles in the movie, well maybe except for one character. I make it sound like it's a bad movie, but it's fricking perfect! Natalie Portman definitely deserved her Oscar, Darren Aronofsky should've gotten his, he's the man yo! I can't wait to see what he does for The Wolverine and totally hope he gets to make his Noahs Ark movie. My muscles were strained and my state of mind was uneasy, a psychological horror movie, who would've thought that of a movie taking place in a ballet environment? Fantastic camera work and editing as well, score was silly great, nothing negative to say. Rent it, blindbuy or whatever. See it dudes, see it.
9.5/10 I have this weird rule to never give a perfect score for a first time viewing, I want to make sure my perfect scores stick forever.
That might lead down to the path of ruin in some instances.Remember seeing Wild at heart at the cinemas and found it a superb cinematic experience,but on repeat viewings the flaws comes out and ruin it.Some movies are a one-viewing fenomenon-like The wrestler.Ofcourse IMO.
But will see it.Might make it a blind buy from your score
This movie was pretty easy to figure out where it all was going as I watched it and the characters were all clearly cut out, so no confusions could be had for their roles in the movie, well maybe except for one character. I make it sound like it's a bad movie, but it's fricking perfect! Natalie Portman definitely deserved her Oscar, Darren Aronofsky should've gotten his, he's the man yo! I can't wait to see what he does for The Wolverine and totally hope he gets to make his Noahs Ark movie. My muscles were strained and my state of mind was uneasy, a psychological horror movie, who would've thought that of a movie taking place in a ballet environment? Fantastic camera work and editing as well, score was silly great, nothing negative to say. Rent it, blindbuy or whatever. See it dudes, see it.
9.5/10
I have this weird rule to never give a perfect score for a first time viewing, I want to make sure my perfect scores stick forever.
I think that makes perfect sense-- I have had many films raise to my highest rating after seeing it again...
That might lead down to the path of ruin in some instances.Remember seeing Wild at heart at the cinemas and found it a superb cinematic experience,but on repeat viewings the flaws comes out and ruin it.Some movies are a one-viewing fenomenon-like The wrestler.Ofcourse IMO.
But will see it.Might make it a blind buy from your score
The Wrestler I simply love, can't rate it higher than 9 though and Wild At Heart is probably my next blindbuy, as soon as I get my new debit card.
And good luck man with the movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKORIS
I think that makes perfect sense-- I have had many films raise to my highest rating after seeing it again...
I think that makes perfect sense-- I have had many films raise to my highest rating after seeing it again...
I don't know if I'd go as far as not giving a film a "perfect" score on first viewing just for the sake of it being the first viewing, but I do understand the mentality and completely agree that some films you have to see more than once (or even twice) and with each time the score grows and grows
I know for a fact there are reviews I've done in haste or while still too caught up in the film and gave it a 5/5 and minutes later realize that it shouldn't be awarded that but we all make mistakes
Watching Into the Blue, as corny and bad as this movie is, the sequel is much worse. From what I hear, Fool's Gold is much worse also. Invincible is on deck, I remember I almost smashed this movie when I got back from the game where the Eagles beat the Cowboys last year.
Not quite sure what Fool's Gold and Into the Blue really have to do with eachother.
Just finish watching it. I know that a lot of people seem to like and enjoy this movie but I am not going to be one of them. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying it's horrible but I will not be praising it either. The story is nice, very well done if a bit too childish for my taste. The main problem was the animation. I really had a hard time with it. It sort of remind me of a bad yellow submarine on a acid trip. I really did not enjoy it at all. I truly do not enjoy it when they have these great stories and then make them and wrap them in extremely subpar animation that look like it was done by some sort of one man in his garage. I know it's a style that is enjoyed and praise in Japan but it's not one I like. I find it just cheapen the great story they created.
Like I said, not a horrible movie but not one where I will be praising it like so many others have been doing. Seen it once and that will be enough for me.
This movie was pretty easy to figure out where it all was going as I watched it and the characters were all clearly cut out, so no confusions could be had for their roles in the movie, well maybe except for one character. I make it sound like it's a bad movie, but it's fricking perfect! Natalie Portman definitely deserved her Oscar, Darren Aronofsky should've gotten his, he's the man yo! I can't wait to see what he does for The Wolverine and totally hope he gets to make his Noahs Ark movie. My muscles were strained and my state of mind was uneasy, a psychological horror movie, who would've thought that of a movie taking place in a ballet environment? Fantastic camera work and editing as well, score was silly great, nothing negative to say. Rent it, blindbuy or whatever. See it dudes, see it.
9.5/10
I have this weird rule to never give a perfect score for a first time viewing, I want to make sure my perfect scores stick forever.
I gave it the same score, but I saw how perfect it was and I couldn't work out why I felt so letdown at the end, I just thought that it was a really good film. Though I did find it perfect in every sense, weird.
I saw this movie when it first came out on DVD in 2008 and remembered enjoying it but haven't seen it since. So when I saw it was making its premiere on television recently I DVR'd it to see it again.
It's definitely not all that good, but I still think it is enjoyable.
Most of the humor falls flat, with the exception being some of Fraser's stuff (of whom I'm a fan).
The movie also feels a little rushed, being only 93 minutes it doesn't have much time to do anything for very long. Another 10 or so minutes would have been nice to flesh out some portions of the film a little more.
Also, it's VERY gimmicky with the 3D, which makes it when you see it in 2D....
On top of that a lot of the effects are quite poor and there are many moments with logic (and keep in mind this is AFTER you wrap your head around the fact that there are things living deep underground in a tropical like forest )
As I previously mentioned, Fraser gets the only laughs in the movie and is also carries the film for me. He's what makes the movie fun
Hutcherson is terrible as the nephew, but I don't know if it stems from him just being a bad actor or his material sucking.
Watch it on television or rent it if you are mildly interested. You might have a little fun, but I doubt you'll find it anything more than that.
I must have been a James Bond fan since I was 12. Hence, I spent half of my day today playing “007: Blood Stone.” Thus, I managed to beat it. Ergo, I decided it was as good of a time as any to kick off a James Bond marathon! Therefore…
“Casino Royale” 2006
[Show spoiler]From 1962 to 2002 (if not longer if you count the original books and TV special), the James Bond franchise had swelled tremendously. “Die Another Day” was the twentieth in the series…and probably the worst of the lot. As long as the series ran, any semblance of a story arc was long forgotten, the character became somewhat hollow and lost through different actors’ incarnations, and the movies have varied so much in quality and substance. Something went missing since the Sean Connery era; the franchise was ripe and ready for a fresh new start!
So in 2006, “Casino Royale” blasted into the scene. It’s cooler, slicker, bigger, and a whole lot of fun! From start to finish, the film features shedloads of thrilling action scenes, all fast-paced and intense. Even when the characters aren’t chasing each other or shooting the place up, the film maintains decent tension and high pacing (which is especially surprising since a good chunk of the movie focuses on a card game). With a long runtime and a big scope and scale, the film is easily the most ambitious Bond film to date.
Even more surprising, the story is probably the deepest of all Bond films. A fairly faithful adaptation to the original Ian Fleming novel, this story helps establish the main character and sets up the story arc that would guide the franchise. Some liberties are taken to update the story for the times; the megalomaniac Cold War adversaries have been replaced with terrorists (and as we learn in the sequel, the Quantum organization), and some big action scenes were plopped into the story (other liberties were probably taken, but I don’t remember exactly how the book went now). But what really makes the movie’s story shine is the main character’s treatment: James Bond is much more hard-edged, has a wicked attitude, but still carries the same cool and classy demeanor. Much of the film focuses on his ego, which he has to learn to subdue in order to fulfill his duty. These issues tie into the story very well, effectively introducing, developing, finally changing Bond into the hardened super-spy.
Cinematically, the film is quite strong as well. Photography is very beautiful most of the time; it can be a little hectic in action scenes, especially with the rapid editing, but it is hardly overdone. Camera angles are strong, and the imagery overall can be very vivid. Acting is top notch: Daniel Craig is the most iconic Bond since Sean Connery, Eva Green is lovely as Vesper, Mads Mikkelsen makes a decent villain, and Judi Dench always makes for a badass M. Production value is very high; the Bond films have always had a sophisticated air to them as Bond struts around in suits and orders his vodka martinis, but in this case the suits looks nicer, the drinks are clearer, the cars are very exquisite, the settings and locations are gorgeous, and there’s a whole lot of sleek high-tech devices at the characters’ disposal. Music is quite good too.
5/5 (entertainment: 5/5, story: 5/5, film: 4.5/5) 9th favorite movie of all time, 1st favorite Bond film.
Recommendation: Yes!!!
The Blu-Ray looks and sounds great. The picture shows some grain/noise, especially in the opening scenes (which are likely an artistic effect), but otherwise it comes very close to reference quality. Sound quality does not disappoint either.
PQ: 5/5, AQ: 4.5/5
“Quantum of Solace.”
[Show spoiler]The cards have been played in “Casino Royale,” and now the first sequel in the rebooted series has to ramp up the stakes and start building up some kind of story arc. In the process of doing so, “QoS” gives us a plethora of fantastic action scenes: a fast and wicked car chase, an intense boat chase, a sweeping airplane chase, some frenetic foot chases, and plenty of loud shoot-outs. Why, this movie takes it to land, sea, and air! And with a short bite-sized runtime and a good pacing, the film starts off fast and hardly lets up. The only real detractor with the film’s action is going to be the cameramanship, which is exceptionally shaky, and has some of the fastest editing I’ve ever seen.
As far as the story goes, it gets a little random as Bond meanders from one country to another, before finally winding up in Bolivia to deal with terrorists, dictators, the environment, and some other stuff. To be fair, the story does succeed in encompassing all the major issues in the world today, and distilling it into palpable moral ambiguity. Part of the story’s conflict revolves around not knowing who anybody can trust, as governments side with shady organizations and characters backstab each other. Even though it may seem convoluted, it does become clearer with repeat viewings, and it looks as though “QoS” only scratches the surface of the potential conspiracy that Bond could uncover…maybe in the next sequel!
What makes “QoS” exceptional is going to be the character and his final resolution. Bond’s metamorphosis that started in the first film is complete by the end of this one; both films can stand very well as its own duology, since the final scenes are that satisfying.
As far as the film goes, it can be a hit or a miss. The photography is a very mixed bag: it has beautiful shots in a lot of scenes, but in the action sequences the editing becomes rapid-fire and the camera shakes around quite a lot. It definitely makes for an intense experience (if not totally nervewracking ). Acting is still strong though: Daniel Craig is still the man, I liked Olga Kurylenko, and Mathieu Amalric is an okay (if not rather realistic) bad guy. Production value is strong: there are still plenty of cool cars, snazzy costumes, nice-looking locations and settings, and the occasional bit of impressive technology. Music is cool.
Recommendation: Yes, especially as a followup for the above.
The Blu-Ray looks and sounds darn near perfect! The picture quality has a few grainy spots in the beginning, but looks like reference the rest of the time. Sound quality is freaking loud and incredible!
PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5
I don't really have much to add (meaning you wrote a great review ) but I will touch on the often mentioned editing/filming of Quantum.
I didn't mind it really overall. It is quite fast and also you wish the camera was pulled back to see what was going on better....but it's not like some films where I when I see it (Batman Begins!!!!). In this movie I thought it made it feel more up close and personal, like you were in the middle of these fights that Bond was going through.
And the movie is definitely MUCH better when you watch it in a very close proximity to Casino Royale and I think a lot of people that didn't like the film should give it another chance after watching Casino Royale before it to better enjoy/appreciate it. In fact, I think I'll watch them soon
This movie was pretty easy to figure out where it all was going as I watched it and the characters were all clearly cut out, so no confusions could be had for their roles in the movie, well maybe except for one character. I make it sound like it's a bad movie, but it's fricking perfect! Natalie Portman definitely deserved her Oscar, Darren Aronofsky should've gotten his, he's the man yo! I can't wait to see what he does for The Wolverine and totally hope he gets to make his Noahs Ark movie. My muscles were strained and my state of mind was uneasy, a psychological horror movie, who would've thought that of a movie taking place in a ballet environment? Fantastic camera work and editing as well, score was silly great, nothing negative to say. Rent it, blindbuy or whatever. See it dudes, see it.
9.5/10
I have this weird rule to never give a perfect score for a first time viewing, I want to make sure my perfect scores stick forever.
Just finish watching it. I know that a lot of people seem to like and enjoy this movie but I am not going to be one of them. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying it's horrible but I will not be praising it either. The story is nice, very well done if a bit too childish for my taste. The main problem was the animation. I really had a hard time with it. It sort of remind me of a bad yellow submarine on a acid trip. I really did not enjoy it at all. I truly do not enjoy it when they have these great stories and then make them and wrap them in extremely subpar animation that look like it was done by some sort of one man in his garage. I know it's a style that is enjoyed and praise in Japan but it's not one I like. I find it just cheapen the great story they created.
Like I said, not a horrible movie but not one where I will be praising it like so many others have been doing. Seen it once and that will be enough for me.
You saw that Breakfast At Tiffany's was announced, right?
43 years ago I sat in the back seat of a 1955 Chevrolet (two door, two-tone, blue and white ) and watched Bambi for the first time in a Drive-in theater. It was amazing and a certain scene destroyed me.
I have intentionally never seen it since.
Until last night on Blu-ray.
Still Wow.
No need for 3D with the camera techniques Walt employed. Watch this in 2D and tell me you need something more immersive.
43 years ago I sat in the back seat of a 1955 Chevrolet (two door, two-tone, blue and white ) and watched Bambi for the first time in a Drive-in theater. It was amazing and a certain scene destroyed me.
I have intentionally never seen it since.
Until last night on Blu-ray.
Still Wow.
No need for 3D with the camera techniques Walt employed. Watch this in 2D and tell me you need something more immersive.
Film 5/5
PQ 5/5
AQ 4.25/5
It's a beautiful film. Probably my favorite of the classic Disney titles. It's a shame it isn't longer than 70 minutes. Good special features too.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
but we all make mistakes 
when you see it in 2D....
As long as the series ran, any semblance of a story arc was long forgotten, the character became somewhat hollow and lost through different actors’ incarnations, and the movies have varied so much in quality and substance. Something went missing since the Sean Connery era; the franchise was ripe and ready for a fresh new start!
). Acting is still strong though: Daniel Craig is still the man, I liked Olga Kurylenko, and Mathieu Amalric is an okay (if not rather realistic) bad guy. Production value is strong: there are still plenty of cool cars, snazzy costumes, nice-looking locations and settings, and the occasional bit of impressive technology. Music is cool.
) but I will touch on the often mentioned editing/filming of Quantum.
when I see it (Batman Begins!!!!). In this movie I thought it made it feel more up close and personal, like you were in the middle of these fights that Bond was going through.
Linear Mode
